van Keulen, Susan, United States Magistrate Judge
v.
PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant
Counsel
Rachel S. Brass, Lauren Dansey, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert C. Walters, Scott Hvidt, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Dominic Surprenant, John B. Quinn, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua Lipton, Kristen Ceara Limarzi, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Robert P. Feldman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Plaintiffs Abraham Ancer, Carlos Ortiz, Pat Perez, Jason Kokrak.Austin Van Schwing, Rachel S. Brass, Lauren Dansey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert C. Walters, Russell Harris Falconer, Scott Hvidt, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Dominic Surprenant, John B. Quinn, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John Bash, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX, Joshua Lipton, Kristen Ceara Limarzi, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Robert P. Feldman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Plaintiffs Matt Jones, Bryson DeChambeau, Peter Uihlein.
Austin Van Schwing, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dominic Surprenant, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John Bash, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX, Russell Harris Falconer, Gibson, Dunn, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff LIV Golf Inc.
Brook Dooley, David Jason Silbert, Elliot Remsen Peters, Eric K. Phung, Leo L. Lam, Nicholas Samuel Goldberg, Nicholas David Marais, Robert Adam Lauridsen, Sophie Anderson Hood, Thomas Edward Gorman, Maile Nell Yeats-Rowe, Nicholas Reiss Green, Stephanie Jill Goldberg, Taylor L. Reeves, Eric H. MacMichael, John Watkins Keker, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Anthony J. Dreyer, Karen Hoffman Lent, Matthew M. Martino, I, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP, New York, NY, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY SUBMISSION
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Discovery Submission regarding production of text messages. The Parties have agreed on general parameters but disagree on the scope of permissible redactions. The Court has reviewed the submission and the relevant law and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Defendant TOUR proposes a specific, narrow list of allowable redactions. See Dkt. 275-1.
Plaintiffs propose a more comprehensive approach, allowing redactions of “personal, health related, or privacy-sensitive” information. Dkt. 275. Plaintiffs raise valid privacy concerns that
may be particularly acute in the context of text messages. However, as Defendant points out,
Plaintiffs do not provide parameters or exemplars, particularly as to any definition of or distinction
between “personal” and “privacy-sensitive.” Defendant also offers that any such information can
be produced as “Attorneys-Eyes Only” under the Protective Order.
In consideration of the Parties’ concerns on both sides of the dispute, as well as balancing the proportionality requirements of Rule 26, the Court modifies the Proposed Order (Dkt. 275-1) and ORDERS as follows:
1. As agreed by the parties, each party shall produce all non-privileged text messages, WhatsApp chats, Signal messages, and other device-level communications (collectively, “mobile messages”) sent or received within forty-eight hours of a responsive mobile message hitting on the agreed-upon search terms (each a “contextual mobile message”);
2. As agreed by the parties, no party shall completely withhold any contextual mobile message from production; information withheld from contextual mobile messages must be visibly redacted; and
3. The scope of permissible redactions to contextual mobile messages is limited to the following categories of information:
i) Social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers;
ii) Financial account numbers;
iii) The street and number of home addresses;
iv) Unique identifying numbers, such as passport or drivers’ license numbers;
v) Protected health information, including discussions of personal health, medical records, medical billing and payment records, insurance information, clinical laboratory test results, medical images, such as X-rays, wellness and disease management program files, and clinical case notes;
vi) Information relating solely to family members;
vii) The names of minor children;
viii) photos or videos.
4. Productions of text messages may be marked as “Attorneys Eyes Only” under the Protective Order.
SO ORDERED.